Development has not halted at all. There haven't been any official releases, though. You'll find many CVS builds by searching the forums. Also, a release candidate for an official 0.65 version is currently being tested.

Definitely not dead, the upcoming version will be a great improvement over 0.63.

thats so good to hear 😀

You can always check the sourceforge page and the cvs activity itself. Dosbox is sitll one of the more active projects around.

yeah, 99% activity on sourceforge.

I just noticed antoher project called "DosBox Optimized"

seems like a waste of effort unless they're contributing to the DosBox project itself.

then again, I have a hard time trusting sourceforge.nets activity percentage system. I'm the leader and only developer of the project Shade, and I havent touched that source in months, but it claims my activity percentile for last week was 97%. though it says overall percentage is 3%. 0 cvs adds and commits? thats wrong too. its a little shakey I think.

http://pcnwstage.phys.rug.nl/dosboxcvs.txt

all changes to the dosbox cvs since 0.63

Just the 'odd' file changed then 😀 You guys need pizza & beer!

Qbix wrote:

http://pcnwstage.phys.rug.nl/dosboxcvs.txt

all changes to the dosbox cvs since 0.63

Maybe the main page needs a little news item saying "We're not dead!" and saying that many changes have occured in the CVS (show the log in a link) and then state that users need to be patient for DOSBox 0.65 😁 I'm sure that would solve any wrong ideas.

the latest cvs build is from 2003?

I don't get it. Really. It's not like there has been a release in November 2004 or several status reports on the homepage since then OR just browsing this part of the forum answers this question.
Really.
At what site did you look to get the impression that nothing has been done since 2003?

Dominus wrote:

I don't get it. Really. It's not like there has been a release in November 2004 or several status reports on the homepage since […]
Show full quote

the latest cvs build is from 2003?

I don't get it. Really. It's not like there has been a release in November 2004 or several status reports on the homepage since then OR just browsing this part of the forum answers this question.
Really.
At what site did you look to get the impression that nothing has been done since 2003?

oh my god, November 2004! its not like march 2006 is just a day away or anything... more than a year since a release? The general rule with Open Source Software is to release as often as possible, so as to get bug reports. all these changes going into cvs for the past year arent being tested by anyone not using CVS, and that could hurt that project when the next release comes out.

Also, there is no reports of progress on the main page. theres some info about howmany times its been downloaded, what its been ported to, etc. nothing about progress. No one should have to browse forums just to find out why there hasn't been a release in over a year.

Anyway, I'm not really sure where I found that the last cvs build is from 2003. I can't seem to figure out where I got that information

uhhh, those who test Open Source software know to get the latest CVS. That's why it's there.

Those who don't get the official versions and don't really "test" the software.

They report "My X game doesn't work! FIX IT". "That's 90% of the reports right there....real helpful huh?"

I do agree that there should be better reporting about progress to the unknowledgeable public but for everyone else who knows Open Source it's about as obvious as sticking your head outside and noticing that the sun is shining.

I would also have to agree that it's been much too long since the last release, and there haven't been enough updates on the home page. It's now to the point where even Qbix and Harekiet are recommending that regular users try CVS builds to resolve issues.

I think they need a communications director (and no, I'm not volunteering!) to handle news updates and release packaging, so they can continue to focus on development.

oh my god, November 2004! its not like march 2006 is just a day away or anything... more than a year since a release? The general rule with Open Source Software is to release as often as possible, so as to get bug reports. all these changes going into cvs for the past year arent being tested by anyone not using CVS, and that could hurt that project when the next release comes out.

Again, I don't get it. All your ramblings seem to me like you haven't really informed yourself before posting. Latest CVS release 2003? WTF?
Just reading the first post in the forum you posted should have informed you a bit more.
And where do you get the rule that open source should release as often as possible?
I'm in two open source projects on SF and one hasn't even released anything yet. I'd say the general rule should be that open source should have binary snapshots availlable for those who dare run CVS. IF you had looked into the development forum you'd noticed that CVS IS being tested by people and especially and more important it is tested by people who are good bug reporters.

Well, the classic OSS mantra is indeed "release early, release often". It's one of the main advantages, being able to tap into the development process at any time. IMHO that's what DOSBox does: CVS builds are stable most of the time and are updated about weekly. It's just not done like a regular release, since end users benefit much less than developers/informed beta testers. OTOH, since CVS builds are quite stable, I've already said (in another thread) that a monthly snapshot release would be useful.

Dominus wrote:

Again, I don't get it. All your ramblings seem to me like you haven't really informed yourself before posting. Latest CVS releas […]
Show full quote

Again, I don't get it. All your ramblings seem to me like you haven't really informed yourself before posting. Latest CVS release 2003? WTF?
Just reading the first post in the forum you posted should have informed you a bit more.
And where do you get the rule that open source should release as often as possible?
I'm in two open source projects on SF and one hasn't even released anything yet. I'd say the general rule should be that open source should have binary snapshots availlable for those who dare run CVS. IF you had looked into the development forum you'd noticed that CVS IS being tested by people and especially and more important it is tested by people who are good bug reporters.

Don't post if you're not going to bother following the conversation. I've already explained all of what you've just said. Your hostility is starting to annoy me.

HunterZ wrote:

I think they need a communications director (and no, I'm not volunteering!) to handle news updates and release packaging, so they can continue to focus on development.

I wouldn't mind helping with posting news on the site or packaging if thats really a hastle for the development team. I guess this is the wrong place to ask though.

Don't post if you're not going to bother following the conversation.

Thank god it's not your decision when I post.

I've already explained all of what you've just said.

Nope, certainly not all.

Your hostility is starting to annoy me.

good

Dominus wrote:

Thank god it's not your decision when I post.

penis

Dominus wrote:

Nope, certainly not all.

penis

Dominus wrote:

good

penis